Developments in ADMS-Airport to take account of
near-field dispersion and its applications to Heathrow Airport
David David CarruthersCarruthers, Christine McHugh,, Christine McHugh,Mark Jackson & Kate JohnsonMark Jackson & Kate Johnson
Cambridge Environmental Research ConsultantsCambridge Environmental Research Consultants
Harmo11, July 2007
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
Outline of talk
• Key factors affecting air quality at airports• Features of ADMS-Airport• Model performance and sensitivities -
Department for Transport PSDH (Project for the Sustainable Development of Heathrow) Model Inter-comparison (MIC)11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
1) Key factors affecting air quality at airports
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
Key factors affecting air quality at airports
• Emissions • Background concentrations• Meteorology• Near field dispersion processes• Chemical reactions
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
2) Features of ADMS-Airport
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
Features of ADMS-Airport
• An extension of ADMS-Urban – Gaussian type model nested in regional trajectory model
• Includes chemical reaction scheme, meteorological preprocessor, Monin-Obukhov and mixed layer scaling for boundary layer structure
• Other airport features- Hour by hour time varying data
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
Features: MODELLING EXHAUSTS AS MOVING JETS & THE IMPACT OF WAKE VORTICES
• Models engine exhausts as moving jet sources• As the aircraft accelerates
- buoyancy and emissions increasingly spread along the runway
- the exhaust jet sees a faster ambient wind speed, this affects the plume rise
• The plume from the faster aircraft rises less than that from a slower aircraft
• Allows for the impact wake vortices may have on jet plume rise – reduce buoyancy
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
Features: MODELLING EXHAUSTS AS MOVING JETS
• Conservation of mass, momentum, heat and species• Modifications within ADMS-Airport
- Allowance for movement of jet engine sources; reduces effective buoyancy
- Allowance for impact of wake vortices on jet plume trajectory
Drag depends on velocity perpendicular to plume axis- drag coefficient
Entrainment – depends on relative motion and ambient turbulence –entrainment coefficients.
Source
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
Neutral met conditions, plume trajectory (zp ) (1st), vertical spread (σz ) (2nd) and zp - σz (3rd)
Plume centreline height of the jet exhaust emitted at different points along the runway during take-off
The take-off roll starts at x = 0 with the aircraft moving in the negative x-direction
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
X (m)
Plum
e ce
ntre
line
heig
ht Z
p (m
)
Neutral conditions, 5m/s windRelease temperature 232.4 degrees C
Vertical plume spread of the jet exhaust emitted at different points along the runway during take-offThe take-off roll starts at x = 0 with the aircraft moving in the negative x-direction
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
X (m)
sigm
a-z
(m)
Neutral conditions, 5m/s windRelease temperature 232.4 degrees C
Difference between plume centreline height and vertical plume spread (Zp - sigma-z) of the jet exhaust emitted at different points along the runway during take-off
The take-off roll starts at x = 0 with the aircraft moving in the negative x-direction
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
X (m)
Zp -
sigm
a-z
(m)
Neutral conditions, 5m/s windRelease temperature 232.4 degrees C11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
010000200003000040000500006000080000100000150000200000300000400000500000600000700000800000900000100000015000002000000250000030000003200000
-50000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
10000
50000
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
1000000
1350000
-110-100-50-40-30-20-15-10-505101520304050100200
All source buoyant First 4 sources buoyant No source buoyant
absolute difference
percentage difference
Impacts of reduced buoyancy to simulate possible effect of wake vortices B747 long term concentration contour and difference plots
Features: IMPACT OF WAKE VORTICES
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
3) Model performance and sensitivities:
MODEL SET UP
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
0
0
3
1.5
6
3.1
10
5.1
16
8.2
(knots)
(m/s)
Wind speed
0° 10°20°
30°
40°
50°
60°
70°
80°
90°
100°
110°
120°
130°
140°
150°160°
170°180°190°200°
210°
220°
230°
240°
250°
260°
270°
280°
290°
300°
310°
320°
330°340°
350°
100
200
300
400
500
600
Heathrow: METEOROLOGICAL DATA
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
• Gridded sources for all of London• Roads – local to Heathrow from LAEI
(London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory) and the Heathrow Inventory
• LTO: taxi-in, taxi-out, landing, approach, initial climb, climb out
• Other: APU, airside vehicles, car parks, taxi ranks modelled as area or volume sources
Heathrow: EMISSION SOURCES
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
Heathrow: MONITORING DATA
● LHR2
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
%%
%
%
%Harwell Rochester
Wicken Fen
Lullington Heath
4° to 184°184° to 4°
(b) PM10
%%
%
%
%Harwell Rochester
Wicken Fen
Lullington Heath
220° to
330°
330° to 60°
60° to
135°135° to
220°
(a) NOx, NO2 and Ozone
2002
NOx as NO2 (µg/m3) Annual averageMaximum hourly average99.79th percentile
15215127
NO2 (µg/m3) Annual averageMaximum hourly average99.79th percentile
128462
O3 (µg/m3) Annual averageMaximum hourly average99.79th percentile
52188135
PM10 (μg/m3) Annual averageMaximum hourly average90.41st percentile of 24 hour averages98.08th percentile of 24 hour averages
191243348
NOX NO2 O3
PM10
Heathrow : BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
3) Model performance and sensitivities:
ANALYSIS OF
RESULTS
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
0
50
100
150
200
250
LHR2 LHR5 LHR6 LHR8 LHR10 LHR11 LHR14 LHR15 LHR16 LHR17 OverallMean
Con
cent
ratio
n in
(ug/
m3)
NOx monitoredNOx calculatedNOx monitoredNOx calculated
NOX
(dark blue and red) and NO2
(yellow and light blue) monitored and calculated annual mean calculated annual mean concentrations at the automatic monitoring sitesconcentrations at the automatic monitoring sites
NO2
NO2
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
LHR2 LHR5 LHR6 LHR8 LHR10 LHR11 LHR14 LHR15 LHR16 LHR17
2002 NO2 box and whisker plot
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
LHR2 LHR5 LHR6 LHR8 LHR10 LHR11 LHR14 LHR15 LHR16 LHR17
LHR2 “Box and whisker” plots for the ratio of
(calculated/monitored) concentrations, NOX
(top) and NO2
(bottom).
The lines indicate the 75th, 50th
and 25th
percentiles and the lines extend from the 95th
to 5th
percentile.11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
Comparison of LHR2 monitored and calculated NO2
0
50
100
150
21-Jan-02 26-Jan-02 31-Jan-02 05-Feb-02 10-Feb-02
NO
2 (µg
/m3 )
Calculated
Monitored
Detailed time series comparison
of monitored (blue) and calculated (red) hourly concentrations at receptor LHR2. 2I Jan 2002 –
mid February 2002
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
Departure 27R (all wind speeds)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
00:00 05:00 10:00 15:00 20:00
MeasuredADMS
No Departure 27R (all wind speeds)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
00:00 05:00 10:00 15:00 20:00
MeasuredADMS
Arrival 27R (all wind speeds)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
00:00 05:00 10:00 15:00 20:00
MeasuredADMS
LHR2 diurnal variation
ADMS-Airport (solid line) compared with measured data
(dotted line), different
runway use
Arrival on 27R
Departure on 27 R No departure on 27 R
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
Comparison of monitored and calculated NO2 in μg/m3 at LHR2 as a function of wind speed for the hours when 27R is operational (blue an red) and the hours when it is not operational (cream and pale blue) separately.
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
048121620242832364044485256606468727680
Measured LHR2 CERC predicted
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
048121620242832364044485256606468727680
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
048121620242832364044485256606468727680
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
048121620242832364044485256606468727680
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
048121620242832364044485256606468727680
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
048121620242832364044485256606468727680
Polar plots
of NOx
at LHR2 with background concentrations subtracted. Radius: wind speed
in m/s.
Measured v ADMS modelled
Measured v Model 2
Measured v Model 3
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
0 km 2 km 4 km 6 km 8 km
0
5
10
20
30
40
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
Source apportionment:
AIRCRAFT SOURCES
Annual average NOX
concentration (μg/m3) (aircraft sources only)
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
Contours: ANNUAL AVERAGE NO2
40 μg/m3
limit shown in bold
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
Emissions: SENSITIVITY TO PRIMARY NO2
• Annual average NO2 2010
• Primary NO2, 10% (top) and 20% (bottom)
NO2 (µg/m³)> 5652 - 5648 - 5244 - 4840 - 4436 - 4032 - 3628 - 3224 - 2820 - 24< 20
CERC
0 5 10 Kilometers
London 2010 - 10% NO2Annual average NO2 concentrationModelled using ADMS-Urban
Figure 4.1a
NO2 (µg/m³)> 5652 - 5648 - 5244 - 4840 - 4436 - 4032 - 3628 - 3224 - 2820 - 24< 20
Figure 4.1bLondon 2010 - 20% NO2Annual average NO2 concentrationModelled using ADMS-Urban
0 5 10 Kilometers
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007
Conclusions
Key factors affecting pollutant concentrations in the neighbourhood of airports that should be modelled include the following:
• Emissions including primary NO2• Background concentrations e.g. O3• Meteorology• Near field dispersion processes, buoyancy of
the aircraft exhausts• Chemical reactions
11th Harmonisation Conference
C
ambridge 2007